In the inaugural year of the tax cuts — with economic growth accelerating and the jobless rate falling to an 18-year low — federal revenues from corporate, payroll and personal income taxes actually fell.

That’s true whether you adjust revenues and growth for inflation — or not.

This is not surprising. It's what every serious analysis I ever saw reported said would happen. But Republicans in Congress and the President looked everyone in the eye and lied to them with glittering generalities.

This is one thing that has bothered me about Republicans for years. I am not against Tax cuts per se. But I am against this thing where they claim the Reagan tax cuts improved the revenue situation and that people can have their cake and eat it too. You know, we can cut taxes and we will actually get MORE money!

It's a lie. And it's a lie that Republicans have told repeatedly.

Reagan didn't. Reagan referred to tax cuts in the context of cutting government's "allowance." But those who have come after him repeat the lie over and over again.

Tax cuts are fine. But don't tell people you're going to cut taxes and get more money under current circumstances. Yes, it is true that there is a point at which further increasing tax rates would result in lower revenue and there is a point at which taxes could be so high that cutting tax rates would increase revenue. But we are not in that realm.

Don't make flipping claiming that tax cuts won't result in less revenue than there otherwise would have been part of the argument for tax cuts.

It’s not a lie. It’s an assumption and any (repeat—ANY) revenue projection includes assumptions just like that. It’s entirely possible it could happen—you CAN cut taxes and generate more revenue in many cases. The lie is in insisting that it DID happen when in this calendar year it didn’t.

"Ah ****. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12

This is not surprising. It's what every serious analysis I ever saw reported said would happen. But Republicans in Congress and the President looked everyone in the eye and lied to them with glittering generalities.

This is one thing that has bothered me about Republicans for years. I am not against Tax cuts per se. But I am against this thing where they claim the Reagan tax cuts improved the revenue situation and that people can have their cake and eat it too. You know, we can cut taxes and we will actually get MORE money!

It's a lie. And it's a lie that Republicans have told repeatedly.

Reagan didn't. Reagan referred to tax cuts in the context of cutting government's "allowance." But those who have come after him repeat the lie over and over again.

Tax cuts are fine. But don't tell people you're going to cut taxes and get more money under current circumstances. Yes, it is true that there is a point at which further increasing tax rates would result in lower revenue and there is a point at which taxes could be so high that cutting tax rates would increase revenue. But we are not in that realm.

Don't make flipping claiming that tax cuts won't result in less revenue than there otherwise would have been part of the argument for tax cuts.

It’s not a lie. It’s an assumption and any (repeat—ANY) revenue projection includes assumptions just like that. It’s entirely possible it could happen—you CAN cut taxes and generate more revenue in many cases. The lie is in insisting that it DID happen when in this calendar year it didn’t.

No, it's a lie. There are reasonable assumptions and there are unreasonable assumptions. Republicans who did this thing knew damned well that it was highly likely that the tax cut they put through would result in less revenue than the would have been accumulated with the tax system as it was. They lied to the American People.

Well, I believe that I must tell the truthAnd say things as they really areBut if I told the truth and nothing but the truthCould I ever be a star?Deep Purple: No One Came

AZGrizFan wrote:It’s not a lie. It’s an assumption and any (repeat—ANY) revenue projection includes assumptions just like that. It’s entirely possible it could happen—you CAN cut taxes and generate more revenue in many cases. The lie is in insisting that it DID happen when in this calendar year it didn’t.

No, it's a lie. There are reasonable assumptions and there are unreasonable assumptions. Republicans who did this thing knew damned well that it was highly likely that the tax cut they put through would result in less revenue than the would have been accumulated with the tax system as it was. They lied to the American People.

You're really Capn Cat or D1B, aren't you? Took over the old corpse of remains of poor St Onge's profile.

CitadelGrad wrote:They'll do much worse than knock up a suburban WASP slut. That's the whole point. The red states haven't been asking for this **** storm, but Seattle, Portland, LA and San Francisco have. Now they have to admit their NIMBY hypocrisy or welcome the illegals with open arms.

1). It was a Tommy Boy reference.

2). Seattle et al are not states...although there’s also a stated rights component.

3). Unless they’re incarcerated, neighboring cities who didn’t ask for it are effected.

Didn't say they were states.

I guess the neighboring cities have a complaint with the sanctuary city, not with Trump.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

In the inaugural year of the tax cuts — with economic growth accelerating and the jobless rate falling to an 18-year low — federal revenues from corporate, payroll and personal income taxes actually fell.

That’s true whether you adjust revenues and growth for inflation — or not.

This is not surprising. It's what every serious analysis I ever saw reported said would happen. But Republicans in Congress and the President looked everyone in the eye and lied to them with glittering generalities.

This is one thing that has bothered me about Republicans for years. I am not against Tax cuts per se. But I am against this thing where they claim the Reagan tax cuts improved the revenue situation and that people can have their cake and eat it too. You know, we can cut taxes and we will actually get MORE money!

It's a lie. And it's a lie that Republicans have told repeatedly.

Reagan didn't. Reagan referred to tax cuts in the context of cutting government's "allowance." But those who have come after him repeat the lie over and over again.

Tax cuts are fine. But don't tell people you're going to cut taxes and get more money under current circumstances. Yes, it is true that there is a point at which further increasing tax rates would result in lower revenue and there is a point at which taxes could be so high that cutting tax rates would increase revenue. But we are not in that realm.

Don't make flipping claiming that tax cuts won't result in less revenue than there otherwise would have been part of the argument for tax cuts.

During the 8 years of the Reagan administration, the overall tax burden was lower but federal revenues rose by 96%. You see, tax rates matter far less than GDP growth. It's GDP growth that increases federal revenues.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

This is not surprising. It's what every serious analysis I ever saw reported said would happen. But Republicans in Congress and the President looked everyone in the eye and lied to them with glittering generalities.

This is one thing that has bothered me about Republicans for years. I am not against Tax cuts per se. But I am against this thing where they claim the Reagan tax cuts improved the revenue situation and that people can have their cake and eat it too. You know, we can cut taxes and we will actually get MORE money!

It's a lie. And it's a lie that Republicans have told repeatedly.

Reagan didn't. Reagan referred to tax cuts in the context of cutting government's "allowance." But those who have come after him repeat the lie over and over again.

Tax cuts are fine. But don't tell people you're going to cut taxes and get more money under current circumstances. Yes, it is true that there is a point at which further increasing tax rates would result in lower revenue and there is a point at which taxes could be so high that cutting tax rates would increase revenue. But we are not in that realm.

Don't make flipping claiming that tax cuts won't result in less revenue than there otherwise would have been part of the argument for tax cuts.

During the 8 years of the Reagan administration, the overall tax burden was lower but federal revenues rose by 96%. You see, tax rates matter far less than GDP growth. It's GDP growth that increases federal revenues.

The rate of growth in revenue during the Reagan years was lower than it was during the Carter years. That's bears upon the fallacy of the Reagan tax cuts thing. Yes, revenues typically grow as the population grows and GDP grows. The question is if something like Reagan's tax cuts slows or increases the rate of revenue increase. And Reagan's tax cuts were associated with the rate SLOWING.

I don't think you did it intentionally but I think what you did is part of the big lie with respect to the effect of Reagan's tax cuts on revenues. Yes, revenues increased under Reagan. But the rate of increase slowed. All indications are that the country got LESS revenue than it would have gotten if the Reagan tax cuts would never have happened.

Well, I believe that I must tell the truthAnd say things as they really areBut if I told the truth and nothing but the truthCould I ever be a star?Deep Purple: No One Came

CitadelGrad wrote:During the 8 years of the Reagan administration, the overall tax burden was lower but federal revenues rose by 96%. You see, tax rates matter far less than GDP growth. It's GDP growth that increases federal revenues.

The rate of growth in revenue during the Reagan years was lower than it was during the Carter years. That's bears upon the fallacy of the Reagan tax cuts thing. Yes, revenues typically grow as the population grows and GDP grows. The question is if something like Reagan's tax cuts slows or increases the rate of revenue increase. And Reagan's tax cuts were associated with the rate SLOWING.

I don't think you did it intentionally but I think what you did is part of the big lie with respect to the effect of Reagan's tax cuts on revenues. Yes, revenues increased under Reagan. But the rate of increase slowed. All indications are that the country got LESS revenue than it would have gotten if the Reagan tax cuts would never have happened.

John, you're assuming the full impact of the tax cuts occurs during the terms of the POTUS who signed the bill. The impact IS NOT immediate. I would argue that it took nearly a decade for the full impact of Reagan's tax cuts to be felt and the POTUS at the time was Slick Willy. How was GDP and the economy doing during Slick Willy's presidency?

CID1990 wrote:These people are being paroled into the country anyway, to await hearings they never show up for.

Actually they show up for their hearings in the majority of instances. And they have a particularly high "show up" rate when they are asylum seekers. I saw a guy on one of the shows...don't remember which one...the other day saying that asylum seekers show up for their hearings more than 90 percent of the time.

In any case, it appears pretty clear that the oft repeated claim that most illegal immigrants never show up for their hearings is false.

Completely wrong, John.

Politifact’s data comes from one extrapolation and it is uninformed and ignorant. You cannot use their formula because a removal order in absentia is not issued in most no show cases (another way our immigration system is broken)

I process INA ineligibilities on aliens under deport orders- and did so in El Salvador. Paroled aliens unlawfully present do not show up for their immigration proceedings almost monolithically.

The ones who do have reason to believe they will not be deported ... because they may feel they have a legitimate asylum claim, eligibility for TPS, whatever. But the vast majority do not go to court because they will be deported.

CitadelGrad wrote:During the 8 years of the Reagan administration, the overall tax burden was lower but federal revenues rose by 96%. You see, tax rates matter far less than GDP growth. It's GDP growth that increases federal revenues.

The rate of growth in revenue during the Reagan years was lower than it was during the Carter years. That's bears upon the fallacy of the Reagan tax cuts thing. Yes, revenues typically grow as the population grows and GDP grows. The question is if something like Reagan's tax cuts slows or increases the rate of revenue increase. And Reagan's tax cuts were associated with the rate SLOWING.

I don't think you did it intentionally but I think what you did is part of the big lie with respect to the effect of Reagan's tax cuts on revenues. Yes, revenues increased under Reagan. But the rate of increase slowed. All indications are that the country got LESS revenue than it would have gotten if the Reagan tax cuts would never have happened.

Sorry, but you are full of ****. Those who make the argument that revenue growth under Carter was greater than Reagan either a) measure revenue as a percentage of GDP or b) don't adjust for inflation.

In the case of a), GDP was much lower under Carter except for the recession of '81 - '82. Naturally, by that measure revenues and revenues growth were higher.

In the case of b), inflation under Carter was significantly higher than during the Reagan years. Unless you adjust for inflation (real $), you will get a distortion.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

AZGrizFan wrote:It’s not a lie. It’s an assumption and any (repeat—ANY) revenue projection includes assumptions just like that. It’s entirely possible it could happen—you CAN cut taxes and generate more revenue in many cases. The lie is in insisting that it DID happen when in this calendar year it didn’t.

No, it's a lie. There are reasonable assumptions and there are unreasonable assumptions. Republicans who did this thing knew damned well that it was highly likely that the tax cut they put through would result in less revenue than the would have been accumulated with the tax system as it was. They lied to the American People.

You might be a smart guy in your field, but you should leave math and economics alone. You’re full retard in those areas and you’ve proven it time and time again on this board.

"Ah ****. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12

JohnStOnge wrote:The rate of growth in revenue during the Reagan years was lower than it was during the Carter years. That's bears upon the fallacy of the Reagan tax cuts thing. Yes, revenues typically grow as the population grows and GDP grows. The question is if something like Reagan's tax cuts slows or increases the rate of revenue increase. And Reagan's tax cuts were associated with the rate SLOWING.

I don't think you did it intentionally but I think what you did is part of the big lie with respect to the effect of Reagan's tax cuts on revenues. Yes, revenues increased under Reagan. But the rate of increase slowed. All indications are that the country got LESS revenue than it would have gotten if the Reagan tax cuts would never have happened.

Sorry, but you are full of ****. Those who make the argument that revenue growth under Carter was greater than Reagan either a) measure revenue as a percentage of GDP or b) don't adjust for inflation.

In the case of a), GDP was much lower under Carter except for the recession of '81 - '82. Naturally, by that measure revenues and revenues growth were higher.

In the case of b), inflation under Carter was significantly higher than during the Reagan years. Unless you adjust for inflation (real $), you will get a distortion.

JohnStOnge wrote:The rate of growth in revenue during the Reagan years was lower than it was during the Carter years. That's bears upon the fallacy of the Reagan tax cuts thing. Yes, revenues typically grow as the population grows and GDP grows. The question is if something like Reagan's tax cuts slows or increases the rate of revenue increase. And Reagan's tax cuts were associated with the rate SLOWING.

I don't think you did it intentionally but I think what you did is part of the big lie with respect to the effect of Reagan's tax cuts on revenues. Yes, revenues increased under Reagan. But the rate of increase slowed. All indications are that the country got LESS revenue than it would have gotten if the Reagan tax cuts would never have happened.

John, you're assuming the full impact of the tax cuts occurs during the terms of the POTUS who signed the bill. The impact IS NOT immediate. I would argue that it took nearly a decade for the full impact of Reagan's tax cuts to be felt and the POTUS at the time was Slick Willy. How was GDP and the economy doing during Slick Willy's presidency?

CitadelGrad wrote:Sorry, but you are full of ****. Those who make the argument that revenue growth under Carter was greater than Reagan either a) measure revenue as a percentage of GDP or b) don't adjust for inflation.

In the case of a), GDP was much lower under Carter except for the recession of '81 - '82. Naturally, by that measure revenues and revenues growth were higher.

In the case of b), inflation under Carter was significantly higher than during the Reagan years. Unless you adjust for inflation (real $), you will get a distortion.

UNI88 wrote:John, you're assuming the full impact of the tax cuts occurs during the terms of the POTUS who signed the bill. The impact IS NOT immediate. I would argue that it took nearly a decade for the full impact of Reagan's tax cuts to be felt and the POTUS at the time was Slick Willy. How was GDP and the economy doing during Slick Willy's presidency?

CitadelGrad wrote:Sorry, but you are full of ****. Those who make the argument that revenue growth under Carter was greater than Reagan either a) measure revenue as a percentage of GDP or b) don't adjust for inflation.

In the case of a), GDP was much lower under Carter except for the recession of '81 - '82. Naturally, by that measure revenues and revenues growth were higher.

In the case of b), inflation under Carter was significantly higher than during the Reagan years. Unless you adjust for inflation (real $), you will get a distortion.

JohnStOnge wrote:The rate of growth in revenue during the Reagan years was lower than it was during the Carter years. That's bears upon the fallacy of the Reagan tax cuts thing. Yes, revenues typically grow as the population grows and GDP grows. The question is if something like Reagan's tax cuts slows or increases the rate of revenue increase. And Reagan's tax cuts were associated with the rate SLOWING.

I don't think you did it intentionally but I think what you did is part of the big lie with respect to the effect of Reagan's tax cuts on revenues. Yes, revenues increased under Reagan. But the rate of increase slowed. All indications are that the country got LESS revenue than it would have gotten if the Reagan tax cuts would never have happened.

Sorry, but you are full of ****. Those who make the argument that revenue growth under Carter was greater than Reagan either a) measure revenue as a percentage of GDP or b) don't adjust for inflation.

In the case of a), GDP was much lower under Carter except for the recession of '81 - '82. Naturally, by that measure revenues and revenues growth were higher.

In the case of b), inflation under Carter was significantly higher than during the Reagan years. Unless you adjust for inflation (real $), you will get a distortion.

JohnStOnge wrote:The rate of growth in revenue during the Reagan years was lower than it was during the Carter years. That's bears upon the fallacy of the Reagan tax cuts thing. Yes, revenues typically grow as the population grows and GDP grows. The question is if something like Reagan's tax cuts slows or increases the rate of revenue increase. And Reagan's tax cuts were associated with the rate SLOWING.

I don't think you did it intentionally but I think what you did is part of the big lie with respect to the effect of Reagan's tax cuts on revenues. Yes, revenues increased under Reagan. But the rate of increase slowed. All indications are that the country got LESS revenue than it would have gotten if the Reagan tax cuts would never have happened.

John, you're assuming the full impact of the tax cuts occurs during the terms of the POTUS who signed the bill. The impact IS NOT immediate. I would argue that it took nearly a decade for the full impact of Reagan's tax cuts to be felt and the POTUS at the time was Slick Willy. How was GDP and the economy doing during Slick Willy's presidency?

The problem for that outlook is that the GDP and the economy during the Slick Willy economy was associated with Slick Willy RAISING taxes. I've heard the stuff about the "delayed effect" before. I think that is just people who want to take that point of view trying to find SOME way to support it. But Reagan cut taxes and the rate of revenue increase slowed. It increased some later after Reagan had to go back and INCREASE taxes. Then it REALLY increased after Slick Willy raised taxes. And it's "Oh wait, that was REALLY because Reagan CUT taxes back in the 1980s, not because Clinon RAISED taxes right before it happened!"

I'm sorry. But the idea that tax cuts are going not going to cost us revenue just isn't supported by what's historically happened.

That doesn't mean I'm against tax cuts. But I believe in being honest about it like Reagan was. Again: Reagan did not claim tax cuts would not cost us revenue. His thing was that government needed to have its allowance cut.

Well, I believe that I must tell the truthAnd say things as they really areBut if I told the truth and nothing but the truthCould I ever be a star?Deep Purple: No One Came